Our Dear Prime Minister seems intent on taxing the most vulnerable, the poor , the disadvantaged, indigenous, and mentally ill by his tax on cigarettes and alcohol.
These people are the most disadvantaged amongst us and all this will do is put pressure on the poor beset by debts to drug dealers, loan sharks and banks.
I've done some work with Voluntary organisations at the coalface,
Rich bastards like me and little Kevie can afford to buy fine wines, and good cigars.
Perhaps a tax on Godbotherers and their organisations would garner useful funds rather than flogging the poor.
Kevie walks solemnly every Sunday into church, let him pay $10 a hit as the poor will do for a pack of Wiinie blues.
gg
No, but they will if I ever become PM.
...A higher tax on cigarettes and alcohol would directly lead to less strain on our hospitals.
Every winter our hospitals are overflowing with emphysema and bronchitis patients, and no-one else can get a bed....
Duckman, I'm hoping this was tongue in cheek from you?It is certainly NOT an increase in tax. Where did you get that crass idea from?
Duckman
Sails, sensible reasoning. My years working in the welfare sector would support what you suggest.If a higher tax would simply fix the problem of these addictions and free up hospital beds, then I am all for it.
But my understanding is that smokes and grog are usually the last thing to go - other necessities such as food are more likely be sacrificed long before there is any decrease in addictive intake.
So, it is possible that the new tax may have a reverse effect with poorer people needing even more medical attention due to inadequate nutrition, etc. Only time will tell...
Taxes on cigarettes etc are an indirect tax. If you don't use them you don't pay it. These taxes should fund more than needed especially with health care.
Taxes on cigarettes etc are an indirect tax. If you don't use them you don't pay it. These taxes should fund more than needed especially with health care.
Tink, there's nothing wrong with alcohol when used sensibly which is the case with most people.Yep - watching the downhill slide in smoking over the years, I would be happy to see the downhill slide in alcohol too..
I hope they do take the same path...
Tink, there's nothing wrong with alcohol when used sensibly which is the case with most people.
Why should reasonable and sensible users of alcohol be slugged with an extra tax on the basis of the suggestion by government that the additional tax is to 'deter binge drinking'?
If a higher tax would simply fix the problem of these addictions and free up hospital beds, then I am all for it.
But my understanding is that smokes and grog are usually the last thing to go - other necessities such as food are more likely be sacrificed long before there is any decrease in addictive intake.
So, it is possible that the new tax may have a reverse effect with poorer people needing even more medical attention due to inadequate nutrition, etc. Only time will tell...
I don't think you understand the Governments Purpose of tax. Tax is used to curve social behavior.
If people didn't speed and have car accidents then they wouldn't fine you.
Why would they want to tax people who go to church when are already in-line with the governments preferred social behavior?
Churches etc. are given money via donation during masses. That is not income, that is a gift, a charity, a donation. Can't be taxed.
I believe churches and religious organisations should be taxed on all the business activities that comprises the bulk of their income. Fair's fair.
Residential and commercial rental properties, bank interest, capital gains from shares, dividends, business income (think Hillsong Church and the mass sales of CD's and DVD's, T shirts, books etc), schools.
If these organisations are serious about being good for society then they would have no problem in supporting it financially and not just morally.
Planning a career in the jargon industry, jono???Also the tax is required to internalise externalities that are associated with these goods. There are negative externalities associated with the consumption of these goods on other members of society like the reduced productivity, pollution, negative antisocial behaviour all costs which are not paid by the user of the product if it was not taxed.
I
Just another example of the religious hypocrisy gladly swallowed by the followers. They teach spiritual wealth while their actions are about financial greed.
Then criticise big biz.
One thing I actually forgot to mention is that when a church gets paid a fully franked dividend, they get tax CREDITS, even though they pay no tax!!
So they receive $100K in dividends like every other shareholder but then they get approximately $30K extra. It's not a tax refund its a tax bonus.
So Australian business is actually paying taxes TO these religions.
That's true, Krusty, but the same principle applies to any individual who does not pay tax for whatever reason, e.g. retirees in pension phase.
Well whose fault do you think it really is if they CHOOSE to buy cigarettes over food... I'd say they actually deserve what they get.
However... increasing the price of these goods should in the long term decrease the consumption in them. Even though they are addicted to cigarettes and alco... if 40-50% of your income is going towards it, dont you think people over time will gradually decrease their consumption of these goods....
I thought laws were supposed to do that?
Taxes are to pay for social services.
That's why it is illegal by law, and not a tax.
[
Duckman, I'm hoping this was tongue in cheek from you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?